Southwest 737 crash lands at Laguardia airport. 3 Injuries reported. The Southwest flight 345 came in from Nashville. They don't know yet if it was a hard landing or the wheel wouldn't come down. (www.cnn.com) Plus d'info...

I'm not a pilot so excuse my ignorance but this video makes it look like they touched down nose first instead of flared. If they knew the nose gear was malfunctioning I'm guessing they would want to land like the Jet Blue flight from years past and keep the nose up as long as possible to bleed speed.

So the video makes it look like a hard/bad landing and possibly the nose gear collapsed under stress?

I will theorize...KLGA runways are 7000'...RWY4, RWY's 13 and 31 terminate in Flushing Bay. RWY 22 terminates at a fence separating the airport from the Grand Central Parkway..KLGA sits in a relatively small piece of property tucked between a large body of water and an urban environment.It may be possible the pilot decided that using the entire runway to get the aircraft slowed before putting the nose down was not an option.

Wrong! All transmitting type telecommunication devices ARE but not digital cameras. Tell me when the are going to ban any passenger with a pace maker/heart monitor connected 24/7 to a health care facility that will do an auto de-fib anytime needed. HA what a crock of crap!

So what if it was a Cell Phone... What is the Difference... It was supposed to be powered off and stowed...

BTW, I am 51 and have 29 1/2 years experience in part 121 as an Electrician, Avionics, and Mechanic... If that had been a true crash and that phone had been propelled forward a few seats it could have killed someone. I do not believe that the electronics in the phone plays any role in adversely affecting the a/c, as a matter of fact I have been very vocal about the fact that it does not affect the electrical systems....

All that I was saying is that if these items are supposed to be stowed that is for safety of those items not becoming missiles.

While on the subject of missiles, that brings up small children. I cannot believe that any mother would jeopardize the life of their child to save the cost of a seat. If a plane has a crash chances are that kid is going to die, and not only that the mother (or who ever is holding the child) will not be able to hold on and the kid will be traveling very fast killing them and who ever they hit. I read a report on the United Airlines Flight 232 Sioux Falls accident that several small babies died in the accident as a result of being projectiles that would have survived if they had been properly seat belted into place, and another person died from being hit by one of these kids.

Ron, I see you have only been around for about a year... What are your qualifications, and how many crashes have you investigated... Have you ever approached a crash plane and helped remove someone.... If so, tell me more, If not take your logic some where else... And before you ask it... Yes, I have been to a crash site as part of a GO team and I did help remove dead bodies from a wreckage. I am not going to cover those details.

You are so right. After UAL 232, United Flight Attendants went to work with the FAA to make it mandatory to have Car Seats" strapped in a seat. I'm proud to have been a part of that. It really is unbeleivable to me that parents let their "little ones" run about when the "seatbelt sign" is on. Seriously??? They don't have a clue what can happen. The "Seatbelt sign" is on for a reason. Babies, in the lap, are a "Projectile" in any kind of incident and they are dead. Don't get me started with the "Grown-ups", who are suppose to know better. No "Common Sense"!

Right you are my friend. I would supplement your comment in my capacity of a passenger by adding that I have distinctly noticed that FAs always stroll down the aisle AFTER the 'belts on' sign is on and she makes the announcement on the PA system. They are very polite in reminding personally. Even if the belt 'seems' a bit loose! I was negligent once and the concerned FA reminded me with her usual plaster cast smile to tighten up during the usual run down the aisle before taking up her 'station'. And how can an old man like me ignore the plaster cast smile? ;-p

Think I saw a different one or that video with a bit more time before touchdown. Sink rate look very high to me. think it's ONLY a broken nosegear because the 737 is so tough to break, some other models wouldn't have done so well when slammed that hard.

Why do we hear the voices of FAs in this video telling people to remain in their seats? An eyewitness who spok on CNN said it was a minute and a half to two minutes before he saw the escape chutes deploy. Why the delay in getting the passengers off?

Remember you don't want an evacuation and the plane isn't secured and properly configured for it. Its best to avoid setting off the slides if a safer solution is possible because setting them off is costly and people usually end up getting hurt going down them. In this case they still ended up evacuating but everyone was on the same page when it happened. The Asiana 777 flight is kinda a different story because it was a full blown crash. Sometimes its just safer to stay in the plane then to go out and have people wander around an active airport because remember at that point the airport movements had still not come to a halt.

ATC Isnpretty good at immediately noticing airfield crashes and controlling airport movements to the extent possible. Airplane crashes are not hard to see.

While some concern about the security of the exterior is warranted. The high possible of a fast moving fire soon after impact, is more than good enough to get everyone out as soon as possible. A quick glance out the windows should help determine if an evacuation might be unsafe, eg. no sense in exiting into fire.

But exits without safety concerns should be opened and used without delay.

The plane feels safer, but in many cases after impact, inside the plabe can be the last place you want to stay.

This needs to be trained better. With these 2 examples, training can reinforce what not to do. It will seem instinctual tondo this. "Watch this video." But if you're ever crewing during a crash, don't ever do this. It is your life and the lives if your passengers that are at stake. If a fire breaks out, you have only a very limited time to get out all the passengers out safely. Then the pic of the burned out Asiana 214. Then the story of the girl being run over by the fire truck. This could be you or one of your passengers.

Calmly and safely have everyone evacuate the aircraft immediately. Have everyone gather together at a safe distance from the airplane. Evaluate the needs of the most severely injured.

Not precisely a "failure to flare"...if you read the preliminary NTSB findings carefully. As stated, the flaps were selected from 30 to 40 degrees in the very last seconds. extremely poor decision-making there, and indicates that the crew were trying to "stuff it in", too high initially, un-stabilized and too fast.

Remember that the relatively short runway lengths at KLGA are always a factor too. A Flaps 40 landing should have been briefed and bugged ahead of the approach, IF that had been their plan.

(Speculative only, the QAR and DFDR will provide much info. SWA likely to incorporate early QAR data in their re-current training program if trend data shows a common denominator of habitual flap-over-speed or near over-speed infractions).

Will be interesting to know the actual airspeed profile, to see if the flap load-relief system prevented the flaps from moving from 30 to 40 when selected. Because it's plausible that the flaps moved LATER, once the airspeed dropped below the limit (B737-700 FLAPS 40 placarded speed is 156 KTS, FLAPS 30 is 165 KTS).

Load relief will allow flaps, when selected to 40, but still physically at 30 (due to excessive speed) to extend at 158KTS.

Hitting nose-gear first in a B737 takes some doing!! On the ground with all three gear firmly planted, the normal pitch attitude is about -2 degrees. Normal attitude Flaps 30 is about 2-3 degrees UP. Wondering, here, if the flaps moving DURING the flare caused the unexpected pitch down?

Almost thought I was being too harsh. That concern disappeared when it was reported that the pilot landed nose first.

Seems like it's almost always the basics. Failure to keep aircraft at the appropriate speed for landing. Asiana was going too slow. This aircraft was going too fast. The pilot almost certainly allowed himself to get behind the plane, when you want to be ahead of it.

Came in too fast, therefore too soon. Everything else just followed, including landing nose first and the collapse of the nose gear, the evacuation post-crash by emergency slide and the closing of a major airport and the cancelling and/or delaying of many flights.

It can happen in a brief moment of bad judgment.I had an instructor Captain I was checking out into a certain Central American airport with a runway shorter than LGA's push the nose over in a attempt to get the airplane on the ground. When you have extra (undesired) airspeed and the airplane in in ground effect, it is not going to settle to the runway when you want and pushing the nose over has a predictable result. Could this be another case of an unstable approach that should have been followed by a go around? Only the investigation will determine.

well stuff happens....just imagine the media outcry if they hear this was another pilot in training....."Tonight at 11...Is the flight you on safe and is there an experienced crew in the cockpit?...The things we uncovered are shocking and might have you thinking twice before your next flight.....We'll be joined live by the miracle on the hudson pilot Capt. Sully Sullenburger as he explains how this could be the new norm."

As you can see from the flight map, much of the east coast is covered in thunderstorms.

The New York area airspace is quite crowded and local airports' capacity is greatly reduced during adverse weather. Frequently flights heading to the area are held at the airport at point of origin (departure delayed) to match flight volume to available capacity. Flights enroute may also be slowed down to not overwhelm the airspace.

Capacity is lost both because runway operations are temporarily stopped while thunderstorms are passing overhead, and also because the number of takeoffs and landings in conditions is reduced by FAA limits when weather is challenging, due to weather conditions such as low cloud ceiling, rain and decreased visibility.

The race track was to delay the plane's arrival in the New York airspace, closer to when an open slot might become available to land at LGA.

Compared to SWA 345, they were given one turn in holding at the GORDONSVILLE VOR (GVE). This while still at their cruise altitude of 35,000 (FL 350). On the track log you can see this occur at about 38.1 degrees N, 78 degrees W. Time 13:48. Hope that helps.

Looks like the pilot may have come in high and fast and rather than go around went for the landing anyway. Not alot of room to make up for anding mistakes at LGA, and a looooong wait to get back into the landing pattern if you abort the landing.

All airlines were cancelled equally as they airport was close with a plane crash landed and disabled neat the intersection of both runways.

So they didn't drop SW's place on the on time list.

Now the pilot's rep as a flyer dropped about as hard as the bird. His record will always have an asterisk.- came in high and fast- collapsed the nose gear- caused passenger injuries- had a planeful of passengers exit by slide- closed a major American airport for hours due to his aircraft's location on te airfield.

Hope he doesn't get points at the airline for trying to stay to the schedule. I hope even the fanatical obsession with staying on schedule, yields to matters of safety. Simple things like landing without needing the dispatch of airport's entire fleet of fire apparatus and sending your passengers out the doors and down the slides immediately upon landing out on the airfield with lots of movements of aircraft, airport vehicles and fire apparatus.

The customary standard is to take them all the way to the gate, no matter how eager they might be to get off the plane as soon as it lands. Crashing the plane interferes with the ability to carry the passengers all the way to the terminal.

Looking from a positive point I veiw, once I got to work with functional testing of escape slides (in the hangar). Jumping down that slide was fun... I am sure there are some kids out there that wanted to do it a second time... So you have to give him 1 or 2 points for child entertainment.

Ok. Points for entertainment. Even I'd love to go down the slide too (in a hanger).

But the folks on all those other flights weren't quite so excited at the momentary airfield entertainment had at their expense. "Flight cancelled?" "Flight diverted?" "I'm not getting home tonight?" "So much for that expensive hotel I paid to get a good night's sleep before my meeting tmrw." "My vacation. I'm never going to make my international flight in the morning. It's non-refundable." etc.

There was a email going around a while back where you read a sentence and proves that you can read an entire paragraph and as long as the first and last letter are correct you many times never see the misspellings... Took me several times past to see those.

I believe there's an option allowing the autocorrect to be turned off. Probably a good idea. Many an embarrassing text have gone out because of autocorrect. I sometimes think it should be called autowrong.

I wonder how 'spell check' can help in correcting (choosing between) words "hangar" and "hanger". Because both are proper words of English language. Or I am wrong? If so, kindly correct me and also guide in how to choose by using 'spell check'.All in lighter vein.

Spell check is just like it sounds. It checks all words against a built-in dictionary.

Auto-correct is another beast. It learns words. And may prompt you to change a properly spelled word into a muspelking that it learned from you. It can also change a properly spelled word nit used too often to another word with greater usage.

In balance though it does take lots of butchered words typed onto small phone screens and more often than nit gives you the corrected word. Sometimes, it misses some butchered words, or develops a knack for a particular misspelling that will appear repeatedly, and sometimes even changes words into other completely different words with a completely altered meaning.

I wouldn't trust thus artificial intelligence to pilot a plane with 300 souls without a couple pairs of eyes and hands at the ready to competently manage sticky situations.

As far as spelling, does a decent enough job for now, and will continue to get better.

I'm afraid turning it off wouldn't be the answer. Doing so will result in a larger proportion of gobbledy goop words.

They had weather, and weather related delays, and this plane was even circled at a distance.

They may have used up a chunk of their fuel reserve due to the weather related changes. Plus, all planes are required to have a FAA-mandated fuel reserve in addition to that necessary to go from point A to point B.

It's not like SW has a waiver to carry less than the FAA-mandated fuel reserve.

That coming in high and fast and wanting to keep to their SW schedule, and not have to wait for an open slot on a day with planes packed o the horizon, weather delays and capacity restrictions; rings truer.

According to the news the plane landed on its nose gear. I always thought you land on the main gear first then the nose gear? I guess the pilots didn't have their training manual with them. Probably left in the classroom just like the pilots from that S.F. crash did!

There is a news(not so new) that JUST 4 days before, this aircraft was subjected to inspection. It is alleged that a squawk else where on this forum covers it! I wonder what kind of inspection was that?

I'm almost positive ATC ordered it to circle once do to spacing and weather issues in the New York area. Even though they seem really far from LGA to be circling already its pretty common. I've participated in a few of these my self.

There is a reason for the delay. You wouldn't want people using an overwing exit with AN ENGINE RUNNING that will suck you up in the front and roast you for a hundred feet behind it. The crew must secure the airplane I.E. electrical isolation as well as hydraulic and fuel, engine shutdown and possibly extinguish and maybe lower the flaps for egress off the back of the wing. These are memory items and should only take a few moments to complete if the crew is tactical and processing and operating at full speed. The reality could be a little disorientation after such an event which could slow things a bit.

I never suggested that the evacuation checklist shouldn't be followed. Quite the contrary. Just as soon as possible.

Some people are of the mistaken impression that being inside the confines of the airplane is a safe place after a crash, which it most certainly is not. It us rare that a plane would burn up on a hard landing with a collapsed nose gear, but it could happen.

When fires do happen on crash landing, the time to get out of plane safely is on the magnitude of seconds. The FAA requires a plane be evacuated in 90 seconds before certification.

So getting passengers sucked up into spinning engines, as well as bit following the checklist are strawmen arguments that don't do justice to the need to evacuate a crashed plane.

The pilots on the Asiana advised the cabin crew to keep passengers in their seats after the crash. It took a flight attendant to report a fire on the plane for the pilot to get his butt in gear and evacuate the plane. He kept trying to reach ATC, almost to ask for permission or to be given direction. The last few people just barely made it off the plane, and some people experienced burns. Precious time was wasted just waiting for no good reason, not completing the evacuation checklist.

Not that the Asiana pilots could be held up as examples of proficiency, but clearly the message has not gotten through to all crews that evacuation after crash that results in bent metal should be commenced as soon as possible after the plane comes to a stop. Even the Southwest plane did not just have a collapsed nose gear. Later reporting has acknowledged that the nose gear penetrated into the plane. There can be all kinds of damage that are not readily apparent. If a fire results, time is of the essence.

In stead of telling people to sit down and relax, perhaps the best idea would be to prepare the passengers for the inevitable evacuation that will happen more sooner than later. Things like remind people to put on their shoes. Make sure that passengers in exit rows will be capable to handle the door. Say thinks like "It looks like we're alright and that there are no serious injuries. Is everyone ok? Please check yourself and your neighboring passengers. When we get the command from the pilot, we will carefully and safely evacuate the plane. Those in exit rows should review the exit instructions. When the pilot gives the command, we should exit quickly but carefully. Let's not get injured evacuating. Etc.."

Would be better than the automatic "Please stay in your seats until we get to the gate.*" or whatever nonsense we heard on the video. News flash. That plane would not be getting to a gate anytime soon. And everyone would have to get off long before making it to the terminal.

* she probably left off the gate references, but otherwise sounded like any normal arrival that is taxing to terminal OT awaiting an open slot to do so."

Actually if you watch the video posted in another thread, you can hear audio of flight attendant clearly telling passengers to "stay in your seats, we're not at the gate yet." Also there were reports of smoke right after landing. There were also shots at the end of video showing airport fire apparatus spraying water or foam on plane. That means the passengers were inside the plane for minutes after crash landing, even with the smell of smoke present.

This crash could've easily had a much worse ending for many. Turned out luckily for almost everyone but the captain.

Yah, I pointed a lot of that out in the "Squawk" comments for the passenger's video. It's also just below this post. However, the Evacuation Checklist in the Boeing QRH (basically adopted by most 737 operators) is located on the back cover, and are not "memory items" (although with thorough Sim training, you eventually get to do so many of them to remember most what needs to be done), still the QRH has the steps in order, and SOP requires referring to it.

Thing that sticks out to me are the Ground Spoilers still extended. Although they are supposed to be stowed per the QRH, they really didn't impede the over-wing exits. I also do not see an open door, nor a slide, at door 1L...and the left over-wing is still closed too. Odd.

I'd say the adherence to procedures post-event, i.e. the less than stellar command of the passengers, and apparent lack of effective communication should also be looked into as the investigation moves forward.

Hello. This question goes out mainly to pilots out there, and to anyone else in the know. After a situation such as this, (not sure if it is classified as an accident or not) it would seem, from the preliminary data and information available that the pilot flying, landed nose first, and according to a statement from Southwest the “landing scenario that the NTSB described is not in accordance with our operating procedures."

What might happen to a pilot in a circumstance such as this? Fired? Loss of pilot's license? Both? More?

I've always been curious about this when a situation such as this occurs, and mechanical failure is not to blame. It's pretty obvious, for example, that in a case of mechanical failure such as United 232 at Sioux City, even though there was horrific loss of life, and tremendous damage to the aircraft and airport, the pilot's were at the mercy of a crippled beast. In fact, I think, in that case, it was proven in simulator tests that no other flight crew was even able to make the airport.

This, however, is looking like it's not mechanical in nature, but, a breach of procedures.

Glen, firstly yes this classifies as an "accident" under ICAO and thus NTSB guidelines. The airplane received "Substantial Damage" (just one of the benchmarks).

"An aviation accident is defined by the Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13 as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft, which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, where a person is fatally or seriously injured, the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure or the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents

I note that the FAA/NTSB use the word "substantial" to describe damage criteria, whereas the ICAO does not. Also, the FAA specifies the 30-day window for fatalities stemming from the accident.

As to the disposition of the pilots' Airman Certificates and employment? That is on a case-by-case basis. The FAA can issue an "Emergency Revocation" of their licenses even before the NTSB final report is published. The company's actions will hinge also on both their own internal investigations, the NTSB findings, etc. Then of course there is the Southwest (in this case) pilots' own in-house union (or, "Association") which will likely strive to protect their jobs if feasible. 'SWAPA' -- http://www.swapa.org/

-- They are not directly affiliated with the much larger ALPA, Air Line Pilots Association.

It is hard to say what pay happen... He may have to go back through some sim training, may get time off, may be out of a job. A lot is going to depend on his longevity with the company and his record accordingly. Nothing in solid print unless the FAA yanks his ticket.

BTW if anybody is interested. If you go to "HQ-spotthestation@nasa.gov" you can give them your city/town location and they will alert you way before anytime the station will fly over you in the dark of course, also in what direction from and to and how long it will be visible. Usually 2-6 minutes as it's flyin at 17,500 mph.

"Hello, this your Captain speaking: After the events of last week, I want to assure the passengers, and our wonderful crew, that on behalf of the First Officer and myself, we promise to you,that we will not land the aircraft "nose first". Thank You, And Have a Nice Flight!"

It was the MDW crash that really got the crushable over run area on the end of runways if I am not mistaken... At least something good came out of it. I used to work for SWA in MDW.... That is a tough runway in good conditions.

Didn't fly for American, but did some work with one of their training captains. He told me that in their SOP's a go around was considered a successful approach. Words to live by. Never push a bad situation. Usually when someone is saying, " I got it" the exact opposite is true...

Actually in the other thread, there is a video with audio of flight attendant clearly telling passengers to "stay in your seats, we're not at the gate yet." Also there were reports of smoke right after landing. There were also shots at the end of the airport fire apparatus spraying water or foam on plane. That means the passengers were inside the plane for minutes after crash landing, even with the smell of smoke present.

This crash could've easily had a much worse ending. Turned out luckily for everyone but the captain.

@Photo, well I wouldn't have used the term "clearly" to describe the audio from that cabin video. And, and it sounded (in the video) as if the FAs were just shouting it, and not using the PA nor a megaphone.(*) To simply shout, "...we're not at the gate yet." is just downright silly, under the circumstances.

It was almost (it seemed) as if they had no training in handling the unexpected situation.

My airline (like most) had guidelines for cabin and flight deck crews to follow, with specific terminology in emergencies. Also, each crewmember is responsible for visually assessing conditions outside before opening an exit.

Since they began shouting the brace commands after touchdown, this simulated an unplanned landing accident.

(*)Given the damage to the E&E compartment that has been seen in some photos it occurs to me as certainly possible that the battery was damaged, and Standby Power lost, thus rendering the PA Inop. So, plausible reason for communications being difficult. Still, that's why there are megaphones required as standard equipment.

Unless they landed nose first (yeah right) the only thing that would do it is letting the nose drop WAY too hard after touchdown. As you said, would take one helluva hard landing to collapse the nose gear.

AP 9:34 PM ET 22 July 2013-NEW YORK — The front landing gear of a flight arriving at New York's LaGuardia Airport collapsed Monday right after the plane touched down on the runway, officials said, sending the aircraft skidding before it came to a halt.

Ten passengers were treated at the scene, with six being taken to a hospital with minor injuries, said Thomas Bosco, Acting Director of Aviation for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which oversees the area airports. The six crew members were taken to another hospital for observation.

Dallas-based Southwest said there were 150 people on Flight 345 coming from Nashville, Tenn., while the Port Authority said the total was 149.

Bosco said the nose gear of the plane collapsed when it landed at 5:40 p.m., and "the aircraft skidded down the runway on its nose and then veered off and came to rest in the grass area."

Bosco said there was no advance warning of any possible problem before the landing.

Emergency crews were seen spraying foam toward the front end of the plane on the tarmac. The Port Authority said the passengers exited the plane by using chutes.

For all you people that have never heard of you tube or the website "airnation" there are tons of passenger videos of landings and takeoffs from their seats. In fact some people make a living by taking them.

It is perfectly legal to hold a 10 pound old school film camera (not an electronic device) while filming a landing. An 8-pound paper edition of War and Peace would be equally legal. Such an object would easily be a flying projectile that could kill the person struck by said heavy object.

So why get worked up when someone is holding a 4 ounce digital camera or a 6 ounce ereader, that is not nearly as dangerous a projectile. Having a digital screen does not confer upon either device any special danger.

Some ought to take a chill pill.

If on the other hand, if a passenger were transmitting a phone call, text or other data steam during approach or takeoff, an hypothesis could be made for potential inteference with flight deck or aircraft operation. Although it is inlikely that any such potential interference would bring down an airplane, or we'd have several planes downed by cell usage already. It would br hard to find a flight on which multiple cell phones weren't on. It is likely many are sending or receiving text, email, data and occasionally calls. So I wouldn't be convinced by the hypothesis, and fully expect the FAA taskforce on electronic device's data will disprove the hypothesis, by showing the lack of causal connection.

So again, why get worked up.

The rules will soon change. And someday they'll change again. Each time they'll get more liberal and permissive in the use of devices.

Joking that the guy caused the accident is funny. Portraying his use of a tiny digital cam as illegal is preposterous. Get over it.

Where 1 plus 1 equal 2, 1 Wrong plus 1 Wrong will never equally a right. if it is wrong for one of them, it is wrong for them all. Maybe the feds should find these videographers and give them a hefty time, This is a federal regulation. A regulation is not an option.. It is the law and it is a requirement.

Am I really the only one that ever actually listens to the crew these days? They tell you turn off and stow electronic devices and ALL personal belongings for landing, that means books and "old school" cameras too. Even when the day comes that we can use more devices on aircraft, they will still make you STOW it for take off and landing. Judging from your comment you are obviously an offender yourself, rules are rules, until they are changed. If you can't handle being without your device for these short periods of time, you really need to examine your life.

Actually my guilty pleasure is enjoying videos and pics from airplanes, including landings and takeoffs, especially when the flight is involved in an incident. Not that I'm glad they lived through an incident, but that we have actual footage of the incident taken in real time, to review later.

I tend not to be the Alec Baldwin type. It is an unwritten rule of mine, to not antagonize the flight attendants even before the flight gets off the ground. That rule about not bringing liquids past security, combined with very dry cabin air, tends to make me need liquid refreshments. Don't see the point to not be on friendly terms with the folks who dispense these beverages.

I misspoke about the need to stow items, but I've noticed that flight attendants usually make more of a big deal if the item is an electronic device that has not been turned off. Youtube is littered with videos of passengers being escorted off the plane for failing to turn off a cell phone. But I have yet to see a similar video of a passenger deplaning because she just couldn't put down that book she was reading.

Many road warriors have switched to an ereader. It's much easier and lighter to pack an ereader, which can contain your entire library of reading for your trip in one small device.

Such digitally-based reading would be interrupted under 10,000 ft (with current rules):"Please turn that off, and put it away.""I don't care if you just got to a great part. Put it away, now.""Do I need to escalate this?" (ie. I'll tell the pilot and security, and you'll be interviewed by Homeland Security or the local police after we arrive, and you'll likely miss your connecting flight.)

So much for light reading. It may be hazardous to your well being, under 10,000 ft. At least until the rule is updated later in the year, expected to permit ereaders in all phases of flight, even under 10,000 ft.

You are correct, Sparkie. Everything that a passenger took out of their "carry-ons" during flight, is to be put back in their rightful place for landing. Many passengers are sneakie and will hide items when the Flight Attendants do their 'visual walk-thru" the cabin. When they are buckled in their jumpseats...It's really out of their hands.The FA's are just hopeful that pax's continue to comply during the time FA's are preparing themselves for landing. One more thing about "seatbelts". I recall, that when the main gear" would touch the pavement, I would hear the "click", "click", "click" of seatbelts being released...before the reversers and brakes. Again, keep them on til the airplane has parked at the gate and the "Seatbelt Sign" has been turned off. That is the pax indication that you may, release your belt and gather all crap that you brought on.

Thanks Dee for clarifying. I agree strongly with 2 points that you bring up.

1. Unbuckling while still decelerating on the runway is not the smartest thing to do.

2. Plus, there's nothing more important to be doing in the last minute or two of flight, than being attentive to the landing and any instructions from cabin crew or flight crew. I wouldn't disagree with the import of stowing things in carry-ons, clearing aisles and seats, putting on shoes, and all other such preparations undertaken prior to landing.

-----

But apart from that, common sense should prevail both on the part of passengers and crew.

Passengers should be respectful and follow the directions of the crew.

On the other hand crew shouldn't strictly enforce a rule that will be changing soon. Namely, the rule to turn off all electronic devices below 10,000 ft, well in advance of landing, will be substantially reversed when the FAA task force issues its' recommendations (as per Delta CEO).

In addition, Delta has announced that they will continue in-flight entertainment through taxiing, take-off and landing. Being dudtracted wuth IFE during take-off and landing, can be a greater safety issue, in the event of an emergency, than holding a tiny digital camera while being attentive.

I suggest an important educational role for the crew, to complement their safety role.

The following examples of dialogue not only educates but helps to gauge whether a passenger will be cooperative.

"Can I trust you to put that item away before landing, no later than when we're asked to take our own seats? I won't be able to come back and check on you."

"I see you have a digital camera. Can you put it away if you're not using it? If you take it out, kindly keep the wrist strap on to prevent it from being projected into or injuring another passenger in the event of an emergency/ during landing/ during takeoff."

I'm sure active flight crews can come up with even better dialogue. The point is to foster an environment of working together cooperatively to create the most safety for all with the least unnecessary disruption to passengers.

Photo- I totally agree with you, although, my job was to comply with and enforce all directives written in the FAR's and to comply with additional instructions given by the FAA. Until it is the "written word" that electronic equipment can remain on later that 10,000 ft., we as crewmembers, must abide by these rules. We can't deviate or be nonchalant when it comes down to the FAA. 10,000 ft. is the "witten number". All crewmembers should be on the same page and follow FAA directives...if not they could be hit with a hefty fine.As far as 'IFE" remaining on during taxi, take-off and landing...I feel it's a real bad idea. People do not need to be distracted anymore than they already are.( They are distracted the minute they board the aircraft! ) It would greatly jeopardize lives if , in fact, an evacuation was necessary.Sure liked your dialogue suggestions.

I understand that need to follow FAA directives and not lose one's job.

It's one thing to inform passengers of the FAA rules. It's another to strictly enforce a rule that will change soon. It would be good for airlines to cut the cabin crew some slack, in the intensity of persistence in getting passengers to comply. It may just come down to taking time before reminding passengers to comply, and insisting only just before final approach.

So enforcement of the FARs could be done with less intensity, and a bit more slowly, and totally without getting all stressed. It's better for everyone's frame of mind to be relaxed about it. Technically, the job gets done, and directives followed, but no one need feel like there's an adversarial dynamic happening.

Let us know how things change over time, before/ after the written directives change (the letter of the law), airline policy change (both formal or informal), and behaviors and perceptions of both passengers and crew. This topic will come up again, even if only after FAA changes the rule, maybe sooner. Good to hear from folks on the front line.

Hey, Photo. You know, if every passenger would power down their devices before take-off and landing when they were told to, you wouldn't detect the intensity from the Cabin Crew. Doesn't matter what airline you're on or what kind of aircraft you're flying on...research shows that 1 in 5 people fail to comply with Flight Attendant instructions. It's not the Flight Attendant causing the intense atmosphere...it's your fellow passenger who is fighting the system and close to, if not already, displaying signs of beligerence towards a crewmember, who is merely doing their job. Flight Attendants don't want to be the "Social Police". The electronic device directive will most likely change but only the guidlines...not the rules. Passengers will see that the FAA and FCC will relax the guidlines relating to reading devices such as kindles, etc., being allowed to remain on during take-off and landing. Cell phones, skype and other devices will still be restricted, enforced and will maintain the 10,000 ft. rule. We shall see.I'm personally not in agreement with that possible change, as a kindle, on impact, can kill you. Possibly decapitate you. "War and Peace", the book, could do the same. Both are a potential projectile in an aircraft impact.In addition, I feel, passengers should cut the Flight Attendants some slack. They are doing the best they can do to ensure passenger safety and they are up against some brutal paassenger opposition.Word to the wise. Never underestimate the forces of an aircraft impact...or turbulence for that matter.

I won't disagree that the passengers are the ultimate cause of the adversarial nature, when they are the ones slow to turn off their devices.

So I won't ever blame the crew. I blame the stupid rules.

However, the crew can be quite helpful in diffusing some of that unpleasantness. First and foremost, by being relaxed.

While it is necessary to inform passengers of the FAA directive at the specified 10,000 ft., and necessary to follow up to verify that passengers have followed the directive; the speed of follow up, and the timing of when to insist that reluctant passengers comply could be intentionally delayed until the very last minutes before final.

So while I recommend following the directive, and enforcing the directive, I suggest doing so in a relaxed state, and to not allow passengers disregarding the directive to provoke a reaction.

I would agree that all devices (including any readers or other devices permitted below 10,000) should be stowed at least for the takeoff and landing (at least until the gear is raised on takeoff, or when the plane departs the runway on landing). But I wouldn't be too worried by a small light device (digital camera) that is tethered with a strap.

Good luck. It's a tough job you folks do everyday. I hope the eventual rule change makes your job easier, not harder (some devices but not others, and varying by altitude).

Thanks to you both, PhotoFinish and Dee Lowry for the info and perspective.It is an untenable position to try to comply with all regulations and instill compliance to the flying population. It is akin to a case of using sheep flock techniques on a herd of cats.

The people on the way to the airport who were weaving thru heavy traffic while texting, pausing only to respond to a skype call, probably are distracted before they board. That may not be a problem in that there is no solution: you may not be able to get their attention about something that may save their lives.

You are correct... There is not much the FA can really do... If they catch someone, then they can detain them for security and it is a federal crime... But most end up letting it go... You can only do so much for an idiot that doesn't care.

That is correct... All personal belongings are to be stowed... As for the old school camera.. Most have a power switch, and the ones that are so old that don't are too big to carry on the plane in the first place...

People are allowed to keep their glasses on, and hearing aides installed, because if they stay on, you will need them for emergency egress and listening to instructions.

I guess the pilot/s of this aircraft too must have been from some Asian country, like those of Asiana 214.Non Asians pilots do not make errors. NEVER. This is what I gather from general views displayed on this forum.

I don't believe that's a proper characterization of all comments expressed here.

Most do not believe that non-Asians don't make mistakes. In fact many have admits that most folks have 'oh shit' moments.

I don't think most are saying that Asians are bad pilots. But that pilots should leave certain conflicted cultural norms at the cockpit door, and act professionally and proficiently in command of an airliner with 300+ souls aboard.

Even moreso, I'm hearing that pilots should have great basic piloting skills, and that use of automation cannot be let to degrade piloting skills or allow pilots to be trained or allow pilots to never acquire strong skills in directly commanding an aircraft.

Leave all the cultural persecution stuff at the door. Insist on a competent crew up front on every flight of every airline, no matter their ethnicity. I can't think of any country who's passengers deserve a substandard crew. In every airline, pilot training should go beyond monitoring automation. And in every airline, check rides should reflect performance of the pilot being checked. Results should not be altered because of a pilot's status. If they make critical mistakes, all pilots should have to repeat their check ride until mastery is demonstrated. All pilots should demonstrated competency in manually commanding an aircraft during their check ride.

None of these considerations about pilots' competency has any bearing on ethnicity. If anything competent pilots will not allow any of their own personal or cultural baggage to adversely affect their proficiency in the cockpit.

The plane, the injured passengers and families of lost passengers don't care about the pilot's race. They care that you get them back down safely and in one piece. That's all that matters.

I have repeatedly held the views that in professional matters, ethnicity has no role or no place. Yet many guys here hold differently. If a yacht or a car or an aircraft has to operated, it has to be as per the rules related to that machine. I also firmly say that ego problems are SAME all over. It is a one of the basic and dangerous human weaknesses. It is as much prevalent in USA as in Korea or in India or any other country or society.People generally here are true professional, so I believe. Our behavior or expression must reflect it. I have repeatedly asked many of you, will any one be able to raise this as one of the issues to be addressed in the Courts? If my knowledge of legal system is right, the answer will be a big NO! So how will the issue be resolved? Simple, by fixing and defining boundaries of authorities vis-a-vis responsibility. Without using worldly words like ego and so on. Instructor/teacher and trainee/student, command-obedience and authority-responsibility Simple but not so simple.

Many of you exerts are wasting your valuable breath and sweat on coulda, shoulda woulda ! No?Please save it for a better occasion. When? Either present yourself to NTSB or offer to be a star witness when the trial begins. Currently, to my layman's eyes it seems to be an endless sparring! Ofcourse, I do know and understand the purpose of fora like this. But this race for one-upmanship? Incomprehensible for me. Yes, I know I have stirred a hornets' nest!

(CNN) -- Ten people suffered minor injuries Monday when the nose gear of a Southwest Airlines jetliner collapsed after landing at New York's LaGuardia Airport, the city's Port Authority reported.

Southwest Flight 345 was landing at LaGuardia from Nashville about 5:40 p.m. when the accident occurred. The nose of the blue-and-orange jet came to rest on the ground after the aircraft came to a stop, and passengers evacuated the aircraft on emergency slides.

"The aircraft skidded down the runway on its nose and then veered off and came to rest in a grass area between the runway and taxiway foxtrot," Thomas Bosco, the airport's general manager, told reporters. It stopped about halfway down the 7,000-foot runway.

AP-22 July 2013-8:23PM-Via NYT-NEW YORK — The front landing gear of a flight arriving at New York's LaGuardia Airport collapsed Monday shortly after the plane touched down on the runway, leaving several people with injuries, officials said.

Southwest Airlines flight 345 from Nashville was surrounded by emergency crews as its nose gear collapsed on landing at New York's LaGuardia Airport. Nobody died in the incident but a few where injured. The airport was tempororaliy closed at the time.

A Southwest Airlines plane landed at New York’s La Guardia Airport after its front landing gear collapsed. 10 individuals were treating for injuries on the scene with six later taken to the hospital Monday evening after Southwest Airlines Flight 345 skidded to a halt when its nose gear collapsed upon landing at New York’s La Guardia Airport.

At least six people suffered minor injuries when a Southwest Airlines plane landed at LaGuardia Airport with a nose gear collapse, according to officials.

The airport is closed until further notice, the Port Authority said

"Southwest Airlines Flight 345, a Boeing 737 arriving at LaGuardia from Nashville reported possible front landing gear issues before landing," the FAA said in a statement. "The plane's nosegear collapsed as the aircraft landed on Runway 4 at 5:45 p.m."